portrait, wedding shooters, pls chime in.

posted this in prodigitaltalk but I want to hear from my buddies here as well:

Thoughts on focal length (apologies for a long post, but I want to be comprehensive):

I have quite a good selection of good Nikkor and a couple of 3rd party lenses. Focal length ranging from 14mm (Sigma HSM) to 300mm AFS II with the inbetween lengths covered.

My earning focal lengths vary from (what I thought for wide) was 28mm to 200mm (VR). These are used for my portrait and wedding photography.

Yesterday, I shot a small wedding in a very small statutory ceremony held in an very tight, small room with furniture and 20- 25 people. My 28 - 70mm AFS which I usually use for my home studio did not perform focallengthwise well (the lense otherwise is superb). The wide was not wide enough. This was a catalyst for me to start thinking about how I want to approach my hardware assembly for future assignments.

The 28-70mm AFS is a brock of a lense. I am a female photographer 1.57m 53kgs. I assemble my kit with a Metz flash (bounce card as well) on a bracket allowing me shoot portrait and landscape mode. I am physically well trained (sportswise) so in good physical condition. However, after 8 hours on a job and on my feet, the hardware gets a little heavy. Usually I don't use a tripod because I need to move around a bit.

I have so far been fortunate to be able to accomplish my jobs with only one camera (yikes I know!) - my turnover is not excessive, more exclusive since I do not advertise and I am freelancing which suits me fine. I am moving to a 2 camera outfit in the near future (rightly so because my conscience is bugging me for a backup camera, plus it's stressful to change lenses during a ceremony; and because I am getting more on location work based on recommendations). So here comes the questions.

1. Thinking of selling the 28 - 70mm or not. Replacing it with a Sigma 10 - 20mm for a situation like yesterday. If shooting studio or in a larger or smaller area, I still have a 60mm, 90mm, 70 - 200mm VR.

2. Mount my 70 - 200mm on second camera body in the event a longer reach is required.

3. For landscape work I can still use the Sigma 10 - 20mm or my prime Sigma 14mm or sell the 14mm (btw a great lense for macro as well believe it or not) or the 28mm f2 (small, light with a reputation that preceeds it! A keeper).

I am just thinking my 28 - 70mm is beginning to kind of feel superfluous and that a bit of $ sitting on the shelf. In conclusion, I am also trying to streamline my focal lengths bearing in mind to keep my location work assembly portable, as light as possible for practical reasons without giving up a lense with good resolving quality.

Thanks in advance for reading so far and for any input, appreciate it very much.
--
I wasted time, so time wasted me - Savatage.
Heaven forbid! - Babe

I also own a 28-70 that has not been used now for almost 3 years. It is a great travel lens for me because it is fast enough to be used hand held and it gets great shots at F2.8 and 70mm of pretty ladies in the shade but as you said, for a wedding, it just won't hack it. You neeed a lot wider.

At the szme time though, you need some reach for candid shots and in my opinion the 10-20 is not very useful either unless you have something else on another camera.

My personal preferance is to be able to cover all the shots I am required to take with one lens and then add different lengths as needed and as you think of them with another lens on the second camera. But, you need to have that grab and shoot camera that is able to cover any situation where you are absolutely "required" to get a shot.

In my opinion, you rarely have time to change lenses and if you try to rely on multiple primes, you are going to end up with the wrong lens on the camera with no time to change it and you are almost guaranteed to miss either an important shot, which is OK, or a critical one which is not OK.

One word about back up and I'll let it be but, if your primary camera dies in the middle of a wedding and you don't have a back up it could cost you a lot more money than the cost of a back up. For crying out loud my dear, get yourself a D50 that makes reasonably good shots at high ISO and which would be able to fill in for a complete wedding if you had to use it. In my opinion you are behaving in an irrisponsible way to shoot a wedding as the primary photographer who is being paid to shoot the event, regrrdless of how small the gathering, if you do not have a back up camera with you. Nuff said but thass how I feel bout it.

OK, so you have now hit the nail on the head as far as I am concerned about one of the primary requirements. It just gets too tireing, regardless of the kind of shape you are in, to carry around too much weight. I own the Nikon 18-55 F2.8 lens and it is a great lens. It is a supurb optic and it focuses beautifully. It also is just too darn heavy. Every third wedding I pull it out and fit it up and shoot with it, I tell myself, I can do it and by the middle of the reception that lens is sitting in my bag and another lens is on the camera after I have spent 10 minutes stretching out my back muscles. I love the lens and I do not recommend it. I would not get one again.

When I purchased my D80 the kit lens on the camera was an 18-135(I think that's right and I'm too lazy to go down stairs and look) but it's close enough. It is a plastic lens and looks and feels far too flimsy for a pro lens but by Darn, it is a beautiful lens. Even if it gives out in a year or two it will have paid for itself in ease of use, convenience, great range and above all very good optical quality.

Can I tell the difference between shots from the 18-55 F2,8 and the 18-135 F3.6-5.6(again I think thats the range)? Yes, I can and I can prove to my own satisfaction that when I shoot photos with a lot of detail in them, using a tripod, the more expensive optic is better. Does it matter for wedding photos? Not in my opinion. Moreover, the extre range it gives you over the 18-55 gives you a lot of shots that you would just not get with the more limited zoom.

Finally, as a wedding starts to end and your back is really giving you fits, as mine often does, set zooms aside and put on a 35mm F2.0 and mix in available light shots with flash shots. The way you zoom is---

taa da-

By walking in and out.

Your legs can take it a lot more easily than your back can. Moreover, the lens is relatively low cost, very high quality, and allows you a great "NORMAL" Field Of View and it lets you take any shot you need after the actual ceremony and after the formal group shots. You need that 18mm-- end for the earlier shots but you can fiinsh with a low cost higher quality lens, the 35mm. By the way, put a 35mm on a D50, set it to iso 1600 or iso 800 and shoot away with no flash and you will absolutely love the output and you will feel you are cheating because the combination is so light. Spend a little more and get the D80 and you won't have to worry about image quality again either because that camera is about as good as it gets in a Nikon mount. For image quality, particularly at high ISO, it beats the D200 by a lot.

The other two lenses I have and use often are the 24-135 VR and the Sigma 18-55 F2.8. Actually. I use the 24-135 VR lens most of the time and my wife uses the 18-135. There are shots that require the 18mm though, so if you are going solo I would not recommend it but I just ask my wife to shoot shots where the really wide end is needed. I like the 24-135 VR but you have to be really careful to keep the VR turned off when you are using flash as it will burn through your batteries pretty fast and use that VR only for a few hand held shots when the lighting is good for them. I keep that Vr lens on the camera just for those situations where the lighting is good and the situation warrents it and those shots end up being favorites over and over so I am pretty stuck on that lens. The Sigma 18-55 F2.8 is a marvelous lens too in that it is half the weight of the Nikon of the same focal length and almost as good opptically but I find that I really do want the extra reach for some shots so I usually take that lens off right after the formal group shots.

I have tried the 18-200VR and maybe I just got a bad copy but I returned the lens and had to put up with shots that I am still embaressed about because they are just not sharp enough, particularly at the long end. Maybe I just didn't use the lens properly but after being burned I didn't want to revisit it.

For event shooting, including a few weddings I do every year, I try to go as light as possible:

1 camera (Fuji S3 at the moment, waiting for the S5

17-55/2.8

80-200/2.8

2 flashes ( one SB 80DX and one SB 26) + radio slave for the SB 26 - it will change to 2 SB 800 without radio when the S5 arrives - flash techniques are a separate matter

Newton bracket

Cards, batteries, etc.

The smallest bag possible which can accomodate all the above.

1-2 stands + brollies in a tripod bag

Back-up: 1 camera (Nikon D100) + old Sigma AF 24/2.8 + batteries - in the car

My tripod lives in my car, but is usually not employed for this shootings.

I also have the Tokina 12-24/4 and can be quite useful in very cramped situations, but it is not a light and small lens so I try to do without it.

The weddings here are quite different from yours ( see http://www.2001foto.ro ) so I will try to cover the common things:

• we can do flash in church, so I use one flash in camera and one on the other side on a stand (no brolly), radio triggered so the guests flashes can not fire it.

• for the reception I use only the flash on camera, and the 17-55/2.8 which can do all the work by itself.

• formals indoors or in the shadow, the second flash will be used again.

If you work with an assistant, he/she could place your second light wher you need it and your images will look much better and different from the others snapshots, including the reception, cake cutting, etc.

Since most events and weddigns are in tight spaces, I could not do without a 17-xx or 18-xx zoom because it would involve too much lens changing between the 12-24 and a 28-xx zoom ( I had the Tamron 28-75/2.8, great lens for people but not for the events I do ).

But I discovered I can do quite well with the 17-55/2.8 and not regret not having the 12-24 with me.

Of course, if I expect a very tight space or intend to do very wide images, I will carry it, but for most events it may stay in the car or even at home

--
Radu Grozescu

http://www.RaduGrozescu.com
Corporate & Editorial Photography

Radu, we agree completely on the basics. But as I said, I like to have more reach for close up candids.

So here comes the questions.

Babe said:

1. Thinking of selling the 28 - 70mm or not. Replacing it with a
Sigma 10 - 20mm for a situation like yesterday. If shooting
studio or in a larger or smaller area, I still have a 60mm, 90mm,
70 - 200mm VR.
2. Mount my 70 - 200mm on second camera body in the event a longer
reach is required.
3. For landscape work I can still use the Sigma 10 - 20mm or my
prime Sigma 14mm or sell the 14mm (btw a great lense for macro as
well believe it or not) or the 28mm f2 (small, light with a
reputation that preceeds it! A keeper).

Click to expand...

Babe said:

Thanks in advance for reading so far and for any input, appreciate
it very much.
--
I wasted time, so time wasted me - Savatage.
Heaven forbid! - Babe

Click to expand...

--

My primary lens is the 17-55, most used overall, could do the entire wedding with it if I had to. I landed in a chapel small in size with the 24-85D mounted and found even 24 wasn't quite wide enough in that situation, having moved to that from the 28-105 that was getting high review marks here. I also shot with the Sigma 15-30 at receptions and found the 30 end not long enough when the dance shots were on ( first , last). When Nikon came out with the 17-55 I think I was one of the first in the forums to even find one never mind make the purchase and for weddings it's my most used lens ( beach portraits are back to the 24-85D and the 70-200 combo though).

My main kit consists of the 17-55 on one body and the 70-200 on the second with the 50 1.8 filling in on that one for available light shots, this mostly at the church and prior to. One Nikon and the s2. Once at the reception I switch to two Nikon bodies, the 17-55 on one and the 24-85D on the other, I might switch in a different lens if a special shot is needed. I've used the 70-200 and the 28-105 as well as the 50 at various receptions but overall it's the two lenses mentioned above on two Nikon bodies that get the main work done once at the reception.

We use a Lowepro Pro Roller case, it carries the extra body and batteries, packs for the Qflash, extra lenses, the softbox I mentioned last week and a spare flash bracket and 285 flash with Battery1 ready to go in case something fails in the flash department and I work right out of that case, once out of the car just roll it anyplace ( like travel luggage).

Additionally, my wife uses a Pentax with the 16-45 F4 and a 90MM. macro. A trend was found after I went through my exif info two or three years back and I found a high % of my shots were made between 17 and about 50mm. with an exceptional amount being right at 33-34 mm. If I went long it tended to be just about 80 mm. or fully out at 200. Coralation of this info with the types of shots found that in church I shot between 30 and 50, a couple overview shots at 17 or 17-24 in tight areas even if I had the use of the 15-30 on . Grab shots of the speakers saying their parts was at 200 once I got the 70-200 but otherwise was racked out full to 135 and needing more on another zoom. I couldn't live in available light at 200mm. without the VR of that lens but it's still the least used lens at a wedding, maybe 48 shots taken with it of 400 plus !!

Something we might put together looks like this, wife from the balcony shooting wide, me at the floor level shooting long. Something similar with nice wording instead of business name went into these folks album as a full page:



We did it full sepia, opted to keep some noise for an older look. Also, that chandelier may look distracting but locally try including a photo like this without it and see what happens, plus you can't shoot around it anyway in that church.
David

It doesn't matter if it's the latest and greatest S5 or not. You need a backup rig, may want an S5 but it doesn't matter. One lens that can cover the event, one body and extra flash ( I know you have more than one flash already), maybe an extra bracket wouldn't even hurt. Trust me please when I tell you your camera can fail mid ceremony, it's happened to me twice in my time shooting weddings. Once with medium format probably ten years ago now, the body jammed and I went to the second body, plus I carried a 35 too. Once with the s2 at a cridical moment as the wedding party was coming down the isle, it just locked out solid even though I had put in all fresh batteries, returned to normal when we got home !

Thank God for backup gear, there isn't time to fiddle with broken cameras, plus you can put the backup rig to good use during the day. Part of professional shooting, and I don't care if it's part time or not, being professional is subjecting yourself to some expectations from your clients. Being prepared as best you can is part of professionalism, no backup is looking for disaster, no insurance is looking for disaster as well, at least here in the US it is..

David

I've shot with Fuji, Oly, Nikon and Canon and these are / have been my focal lengths:

Babe said:

I have quite a good selection of good Nikkor and a couple of 3rd
party lenses. Focal length ranging from 14mm (Sigma HSM) to 300mm
AFS II with the inbetween lengths covered.

My earning focal lengths vary from (what I thought for wide) was
28mm to 200mm (VR). These are used for my portrait and wedding
photography.

Click to expand...

I've shot weddings/portraits with Fuji, Nikon and Canon and these are / have been my focal lengths:

FF: 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 and a few primes from 20/2.8 to 135/2.0

1.5crop: 17-35/2.8 and 28-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 and primes from 10.5 fisheye to 180/2.8. Also had the 12-24/4 from Nikon but that lens was in another class performancewise...didn't care for it.

Babe said:

Yesterday, I shot a small wedding in a very small statutory
ceremony held in an very tight, small room with furniture and 20-
25 people. My 28 - 70mm AFS which I usually use for my home studio
did not perform focallengthwise well (the lense otherwise is
superb). The wide was not wide enough. This was a catalyst for me
to start thinking about how I want to approach my hardware assembly
for future assignments.

Click to expand...

That's one of the reasons I love the 24-70 lens now...it's really 24mm on my 5D...a true wide angle. This was one of the reasons to go this route.

Babe said:

The 28-70mm AFS is a brock of a lense. I am a female photographer
1.57m 53kgs. I assemble my kit with a Metz flash (bounce card as
well) on a bracket allowing me shoot portrait and landscape mode.
I am physically well trained (sportswise) so in good physical
condition. However, after 8 hours on a job and on my feet, the
hardware gets a little heavy. Usually I don't use a tripod because
I need to move around a bit.

Click to expand...

Same here (well, I'm male and twice your weigth , after a whole day with these big camera/lens/flash combinations...I tend to grow tired. Never liked using a tripod although I carry one on my rollerbag.

Babe said:

I have so far been fortunate to be able to accomplish my jobs with
only one camera (yikes I know!) - my turnover is not excessive,
more exclusive since I do not advertise and I am freelancing which
suits me fine. I am moving to a 2 camera outfit in the near future
(rightly so because my conscience is bugging me for a backup
camera, plus it's stressful to change lenses during a ceremony; and
because I am getting more on location work based on
recommendations). So here comes the questions.

1. Thinking of selling the 28 - 70mm or not. Replacing it with a
Sigma 10 - 20mm for a situation like yesterday. If shooting
studio or in a larger or smaller area, I still have a 60mm, 90mm,
70 - 200mm VR.

Click to expand...

Possible, but the 17-35 or 17-55 would perform better. At a greater weight, cost and size...

Babe said:

2. Mount my 70 - 200mm on second camera body in the event a longer
reach is required.

Click to expand...

2nd body is indeed very wise to have and allows for quick "change of lens".

Babe said:

3. For landscape work I can still use the Sigma 10 - 20mm or my
prime Sigma 14mm or sell the 14mm (btw a great lense for macro as
well believe it or not) or the 28mm f2 (small, light with a
reputation that preceeds it! A keeper).

I am just thinking my 28 - 70mm is beginning to kind of feel
superfluous and that a bit of $ sitting on the shelf. In
conclusion, I am also trying to streamline my focal lengths bearing
in mind to keep my location work assembly portable, as light as
possible for practical reasons without giving up a lense with good
resolving quality.

Click to expand...

I used the 70-200/2.8 on one camera and the 17-35/2.8 on the main camera most of the time on the Fuji/Nikon cameras

Hey Babe, long time! Hope all is well

I use a 17-35, 28-70, and a 70-200 as my primary lenses. I have my 85 1.4 for those artistic stuff and when i want really shallow shots or want to let in a lot of light. If you are not liking the 28-70 i suggest going with the 17-55. If you want to shell out the bucks i think nikons 17-55 is the most sharpest zoom i have ever used, perhaps even sharper than most primes. but perhaps the 17-55 focal length might suite you fine on other brands.

if you want to go light and youa re willing to sacrifice some light, is suggest going with a 18-200mm and the 10-20 you like. the nikon 18-200 is a pretty awesome lens for the price.

Hi Babe

I feel your pain. My wife and I use S-2's. She uses a 24-120 Nikkor with bracket and SB-800. She and I both carry a complete back-up system, body, bracket, lens and flash in a case that permits the system to fit inside completely assembled.

The only difference is that my main lens is a Tamron 18-200 aspherical of which I've learned to love. It obviously has the focal range for what I need.

My real attitude is if the B&G puts us into a situation (very cramped) then they need to expect a little compromise. BS

If you really need to go lightweight, I would suggest the Tamron 17-50/2.8 as primary lens, Newton bracket for the flash (very light and compact) and the Sigma 50-125/2.8.

I have the Tamron and is a great lens, from F4 you will have all the sharpness you may need, at 2.8 is OK.

If your style permits, you may replace the Sigma with the Nikon 85/1.8 on a second camera and you may be set for most shots in a very lightweight package.

--
Radu Grozescu

http://www.RaduGrozescu.com
Corporate & Editorial Photography

For event shooting, my main lens for event shooting is the Tamron 24-135 lens. I will typically have a second, wider lens ready if I need it for group shots. These days, that's either a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 (a very sharp and good performing lens) or the Tokina 12-24 (has a bit of distortion at 12mm, but incredibly wide when needed).

I think you would find that you rarely need to go above the 120 or 135mm range for event shooting. Hence, you might consider the Nikon 24-120 VR lens too.

I find the 24mm makes a big difference over the 28mm; often it is "just" wide enough that I don't need to switch lenses and I can take a step or two back to get more wideness.

If you're thinking of going to a two camera outfit, what I would suggest is getting an 17/18-50/55mm range zoom lens for the second camera, while keeping a 24-135 range lens on your primary camera.

One of the reasons I like the Tamron 24-135 is that it is very close focusing, with something like a 1:3.3 magnification ratio. That's good enough for closeups of things like jewelry/rings, food items, flowers, etc.

The third lens I will sometimes bring is an 80-200mm f/2.8 lens, but it rarely gets used unless I know I will be far away and in dim lighting.

Anthony

Babe said:

posted this in prodigitaltalk but I want to hear from my buddies
here as well:

Thoughts on focal length (apologies for a long post, but I want to
be comprehensive):

I have quite a good selection of good Nikkor and a couple of 3rd
party lenses. Focal length ranging from 14mm (Sigma HSM) to 300mm
AFS II with the inbetween lengths covered.

My earning focal lengths vary from (what I thought for wide) was
28mm to 200mm (VR). These are used for my portrait and wedding
photography.

Yesterday, I shot a small wedding in a very small statutory
ceremony held in an very tight, small room with furniture and 20-
25 people. My 28 - 70mm AFS which I usually use for my home studio
did not perform focallengthwise well (the lense otherwise is
superb). The wide was not wide enough. This was a catalyst for me
to start thinking about how I want to approach my hardware assembly
for future assignments.

The 28-70mm AFS is a brock of a lense. I am a female photographer
1.57m 53kgs. I assemble my kit with a Metz flash (bounce card as
well) on a bracket allowing me shoot portrait and landscape mode.
I am physically well trained (sportswise) so in good physical
condition. However, after 8 hours on a job and on my feet, the
hardware gets a little heavy. Usually I don't use a tripod because
I need to move around a bit.

I have so far been fortunate to be able to accomplish my jobs with
only one camera (yikes I know!) - my turnover is not excessive,
more exclusive since I do not advertise and I am freelancing which
suits me fine. I am moving to a 2 camera outfit in the near future
(rightly so because my conscience is bugging me for a backup
camera, plus it's stressful to change lenses during a ceremony; and
because I am getting more on location work based on
recommendations). So here comes the questions.

1. Thinking of selling the 28 - 70mm or not. Replacing it with a
Sigma 10 - 20mm for a situation like yesterday. If shooting
studio or in a larger or smaller area, I still have a 60mm, 90mm,
70 - 200mm VR.
2. Mount my 70 - 200mm on second camera body in the event a longer
reach is required.
3. For landscape work I can still use the Sigma 10 - 20mm or my
prime Sigma 14mm or sell the 14mm (btw a great lense for macro as
well believe it or not) or the 28mm f2 (small, light with a
reputation that preceeds it! A keeper).

I am just thinking my 28 - 70mm is beginning to kind of feel
superfluous and that a bit of $ sitting on the shelf. In
conclusion, I am also trying to streamline my focal lengths bearing
in mind to keep my location work assembly portable, as light as
possible for practical reasons without giving up a lense with good
resolving quality.

Thanks in advance for reading so far and for any input, appreciate
it very much.
--
I wasted time, so time wasted me - Savatage.
Heaven forbid! - Babe

Click to expand...

--
check out my blog at http://anthonyonphotography.blogspot.com

Radu Grozescu said:

If you really need to go lightweight, I would suggest the Tamron
17-50/2.8 as primary lens, Newton bracket for the flash (very light
and compact) and the Sigma 50-125/2.8.

I have the Tamron and is a great lens, from F4 you will have all
the sharpness you may need, at 2.8 is OK.

If your style permits, you may replace the Sigma with the Nikon
85/1.8 on a second camera and you may be set for most shots in a
very lightweight package.

--
Radu Grozescu

http://www.RaduGrozescu.com
Corporate & Editorial Photography

Click to expand...

--

I have my wifes Pentax on a Newton bracket, it's small and light for sure but the S2 won't fit it, not enough room to swing it to vertical. This particular Newton, as I recall, was built for the Nikon FM2 or other smallish manual body. I used a Pentax ME Super on it with no motor drive. Newton has several models though and they are well made and light.

I think the nicest bracket out there today is the Custom Bracket but it's costly, so I use two Stroboframes.
David

David Grabowski said:

I have my wifes Pentax on a Newton bracket, it's small and light
for sure but the S2 won't fit it, not enough room to swing it to
vertical.

Click to expand...

Newton Di 100 FR2 will fit the Fuji S3 and even, if extended to the max., the Nikon D200 with grip

Their last model ( Newton Di 100 FR ?) , non colapsible, before the current models, fits the S3 but not the D200 with grip.

David Grabowski said:

I think the nicest bracket out there today is the Custom Bracket
but it's costly, so I use two Stroboframes.

Click to expand...

Which one ? I had a look at their website and I found some very high, complicated things

I would like to find out more about different brackets, but for my use I can't think of something visibly better than the Newton.

--
Radu Grozescu

http://www.RaduGrozescu.com
Corporate & Editorial Photography

yiao! LOL. Thanks for your thorough input. Yep the 28 - 70mm has not returned in investment. Beautiful lense, thoroughly intimidating on the job. Together with bracket and flash, almost physically overwhelming. Pain in the .... for 8 hours. And with the damn 1/125 limited sync flash speed... ridiculous.

Unfortunately, I have been so lacksidaisical about my assignments that I procrastinate like hell. That will change this year after my surgery (at least 6 weeks out of action! Sh*t).

Do I want to get a D80, no not really. You know I have been hankering on the D200 but maybe you are right. I am sitting on the fence with the S5 round the corner. Arrrrgh. Decision, decisions, decisions. However, the good news is that I will start to streamline hardware, and business strategy wise.

I will sell my pristine 28 - 70mm AFS (anyone interested? Email me). I am not leaning towards the 17 - 55mm only because of weight issues. The Sigma 18 - 55mm f2.8 sounds interesting. I might just sell the Sigma 14mm and get the 10 - 20mm too. But I will have to check out the performance to the price relationship. I am not leaning towards a lense with the 135mm length coz my 70 - 200mm will cover that, and I love my 70 - 200mm - my fav lense anytime. It will be coupled to my second cam body and since it won't be mounted together with a bracket (for available light), a fast f1.4 piece either 35mm or 50mm would complement nicely as the changeable package for low available light. I would love to get the 85mm but once again, that focal length will be taken care of by the VR. I actually prefer primes any day but it won't be practical.

Hmmm very satisfying to think out loud and to have other perspective inputs. Thanks! I hope this year will see amongst other drastic changes and upheavals, a constructive and productive turn to my photographic endeavours.

best,
babe

--
I wasted time, so time wasted me - Savatage.
Heaven forbid! - Babe

Thanks for sharing. Exactly. I want to go light-er since I have to be very mobile and on my feet alot. I have a Metz 54-3 and a 70mz 5 (which is like major flash) but will get another Metz 54, the sca module will allow for slave mode even TTL but I am not interested in that. Usually will set my flash manually and if I use two, I will also set the 2nd flash manually.

However, having said that, I do not anticipate using such a comprehensive set up for weddings here, at least not the weddings I have had to date. The weddings are practical and smaller. And I have 4 Hensel 500ws Studioheads for location portrait jobs. Nonetheless, I could see the stands and second flash coming in handy for bigger events. I have an umbrella, flash holder which could be mounted on my lighting stand. Might just experiment.

See my thread in response to Walter on my leanings towards the focal lengths.....

Appreciate your input!

Best,
Babe

--
I wasted time, so time wasted me - Savatage.
Heaven forbid! - Babe

Not owning a backup camera is a risk I don't want to take; I use a S3, a D80, my assistant a D70 and my S2. Usually we use two cameras and leave two in the car, just in case. But, Dutch weddings are different from US or UK weddings.

The weddings in Holland are split in two parts - at least for a photographer.

There is the journalistic part of the wedding at the registrars office to make it a legal wedding and sometimes in church to ask for Gods blessing of the marriage. Here I use my Tamron 2,8/28-70 and my assistant a Nikon 17-70. Generally we take about the same images from different angles. I'm generally not using any flash; she, my assistant, does.

The second part is, usually before the actual wedding takes place, images of the couple. The quality of the photographer is measured by this part and reorders are usually the highest from this part.(these are the images we show on our website http://www.fotografieleenkoper.nl )

I use mainly the 1,8/85, the 1,8/50 and just sometimes the 70-300, my assistant the 17-70 or the Tamron 24-135 for the details of the dress and environemental shots, we use as a background in the album.

Leen Koper
http://www.fotografieleenkoper.nl

which two nikon bodies are you using ?

well seems like the consensus is 17 - 18 to 55mm. I will go the Sigma way for a change this time even though I am a diehard Nikkor addict.

I love 70-200mm VR for bokeh and just the fine-ness of the resolution - there is just this quality about it. Just kind of delicious. Can't think of any other description !

Hey the roller case is a great idea! I lug my Lowepro back pack! Hah, one third of the weight problem solved :-> )

The image is just lovely. The sepia conversion discreet and sweet. Wish I had more weddings to shoot like that but it is very very practical here although once in awhile, some will splash. I don't have an image on my notebook to post but will when I am home and can access my desktop.

Thanks for sharing, brainstorming ! Keeps our grey cells lively.

Best,
Babe

David Grabowski said:

--

My primary lens is the 17-55, most used overall, could do the
entire wedding with it if I had to. I landed in a chapel small in
size with the 24-85D mounted and found even 24 wasn't quite wide
enough in that situation, having moved to that from the 28-105 that
was getting high review marks here. I also shot with the Sigma
15-30 at receptions and found the 30 end not long enough when the
dance shots were on ( first , last). When Nikon came out with the
17-55 I think I was one of the first in the forums to even find one
never mind make the purchase and for weddings it's my most used
lens ( beach portraits are back to the 24-85D and the 70-200 combo
though).

My main kit consists of the 17-55 on one body and the 70-200 on the
second with the 50 1.8 filling in on that one for available light
shots, this mostly at the church and prior to. One Nikon and the
s2. Once at the reception I switch to two Nikon bodies, the 17-55
on one and the 24-85D on the other, I might switch in a different
lens if a special shot is needed. I've used the 70-200 and the
28-105 as well as the 50 at various receptions but overall it's the
two lenses mentioned above on two Nikon bodies that get the main
work done once at the reception.

We use a Lowepro Pro Roller case, it carries the extra body and
batteries, packs for the Qflash, extra lenses, the softbox I
mentioned last week and a spare flash bracket and 285 flash with
Battery1 ready to go in case something fails in the flash
department and I work right out of that case, once out of the car
just roll it anyplace ( like travel luggage).

Additionally, my wife uses a Pentax with the 16-45 F4 and a 90MM.
macro. A trend was found after I went through my exif info two or
three years back and I found a high % of my shots were made between
17 and about 50mm. with an exceptional amount being right at 33-34
mm. If I went long it tended to be just about 80 mm. or fully out
at 200. Coralation of this info with the types of shots found that
in church I shot between 30 and 50, a couple overview shots at 17
or 17-24 in tight areas even if I had the use of the 15-30 on .
Grab shots of the speakers saying their parts was at 200 once I got
the 70-200 but otherwise was racked out full to 135 and needing
more on another zoom. I couldn't live in available light at 200mm.
without the VR of that lens but it's still the least used lens at a
wedding, maybe 48 shots taken with it of 400 plus !!

Something we might put together looks like this, wife from the
balcony shooting wide, me at the floor level shooting long.
Something similar with nice wording instead of business name went
into these folks album as a full page:



We did it full sepia, opted to keep some noise for an older look.
Also, that chandelier may look distracting but locally try
including a photo like this without it and see what happens, plus
you can't shoot around it anyway in that church.
David

Click to expand...

--
I wasted time, so time wasted me - Savatage.
Heaven forbid! - Babe

I know! Trust me my conscience has been screaming at me. I can't you how I check and check. But there's just no buts! Just thinking about the possibility AND PROBABILITY is sending chills down my back OK!

I have back ups just not digital. They are going on the auction block soon.

Thanks for pushing (as with Walter) me.... positively i.e.

Best,
Babe

--
I wasted time, so time wasted me - Savatage.
Heaven forbid! - Babe

I forgot to mention, we use a SB800, a SB600 and a Metz 54 flash. We don't do receptions and the dance; our task ends the ceremony; only seldom we do the cutting of the cake.

We don't stay for 8 hours; we come, the "free" images take about an hour and a half, about three hours before the ceremony, we have a few coffees, cover the legal wedding ceremony, about half an hour and sometimes the church, about an hour and that 's it.

Leen Koper
http://www.fotografieleenkoper.nl

thanks for the input. As you can see, the consensus is around 17mm to .... whatever and definitely a back up body (not that I am not aware about the second body ie).

Certainly heading in those focal length SOON.

--
I wasted time, so time wasted me - Savatage.
Heaven forbid! - Babe